Mixing
Is altruism a contradiction?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A discussion at work recently involved our CEO (who has a psychology degree and is generally very knowledgable.. I have a lot of respect for his opinion) stating with great confidence that altruism is impossible, the argument being that an act of kindness is at the very least motivated by making oneself feel better by doing it. That makes an assumption that people are gratified by their act of kindness, but that's a different question. This is about the term itself.
The notion that we can't be kind without expecting reward didn't sit well with me, so I started thinking about it more, and realised I couldn't see past an apparent flaw in the concept.
First: definition.
I'd understood it to mean an act of kindness for no reward.
Google defines as:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
My CEO's argument appears to be that it's impossible because (effectively) the act of kindness is the reward, or at least that the feel-good-factor is directly linked to kindness, so there can be no kindness without feeling good.
This seems to be generally accepted.
If that's the case, then my own definition phrase becomes "An act of kindness without kindness", which makes no sense.
Google's definition makes it even more clear:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
"disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction.
At that point, I find it difficult to think further on the subject. The only way I can see it working is if the act of kindness itself is discounted as a reward, in which case altruism becomes entirely possible.
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
altruism
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A discussion at work recently involved our CEO (who has a psychology degree and is generally very knowledgable.. I have a lot of respect for his opinion) stating with great confidence that altruism is impossible, the argument being that an act of kindness is at the very least motivated by making oneself feel better by doing it. That makes an assumption that people are gratified by their act of kindness, but that's a different question. This is about the term itself.
The notion that we can't be kind without expecting reward didn't sit well with me, so I started thinking about it more, and realised I couldn't see past an apparent flaw in the concept.
First: definition.
I'd understood it to mean an act of kindness for no reward.
Google defines as:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
My CEO's argument appears to be that it's impossible because (effectively) the act of kindness is the reward, or at least that the feel-good-factor is directly linked to kindness, so there can be no kindness without feeling good.
This seems to be generally accepted.
If that's the case, then my own definition phrase becomes "An act of kindness without kindness", which makes no sense.
Google's definition makes it even more clear:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
"disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction.
At that point, I find it difficult to think further on the subject. The only way I can see it working is if the act of kindness itself is discounted as a reward, in which case altruism becomes entirely possible.
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
altruism
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A discussion at work recently involved our CEO (who has a psychology degree and is generally very knowledgable.. I have a lot of respect for his opinion) stating with great confidence that altruism is impossible, the argument being that an act of kindness is at the very least motivated by making oneself feel better by doing it. That makes an assumption that people are gratified by their act of kindness, but that's a different question. This is about the term itself.
The notion that we can't be kind without expecting reward didn't sit well with me, so I started thinking about it more, and realised I couldn't see past an apparent flaw in the concept.
First: definition.
I'd understood it to mean an act of kindness for no reward.
Google defines as:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
My CEO's argument appears to be that it's impossible because (effectively) the act of kindness is the reward, or at least that the feel-good-factor is directly linked to kindness, so there can be no kindness without feeling good.
This seems to be generally accepted.
If that's the case, then my own definition phrase becomes "An act of kindness without kindness", which makes no sense.
Google's definition makes it even more clear:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
"disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction.
At that point, I find it difficult to think further on the subject. The only way I can see it working is if the act of kindness itself is discounted as a reward, in which case altruism becomes entirely possible.
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
altruism
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
A discussion at work recently involved our CEO (who has a psychology degree and is generally very knowledgable.. I have a lot of respect for his opinion) stating with great confidence that altruism is impossible, the argument being that an act of kindness is at the very least motivated by making oneself feel better by doing it. That makes an assumption that people are gratified by their act of kindness, but that's a different question. This is about the term itself.
The notion that we can't be kind without expecting reward didn't sit well with me, so I started thinking about it more, and realised I couldn't see past an apparent flaw in the concept.
First: definition.
I'd understood it to mean an act of kindness for no reward.
Google defines as:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
My CEO's argument appears to be that it's impossible because (effectively) the act of kindness is the reward, or at least that the feel-good-factor is directly linked to kindness, so there can be no kindness without feeling good.
This seems to be generally accepted.
If that's the case, then my own definition phrase becomes "An act of kindness without kindness", which makes no sense.
Google's definition makes it even more clear:
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
"disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction.
At that point, I find it difficult to think further on the subject. The only way I can see it working is if the act of kindness itself is discounted as a reward, in which case altruism becomes entirely possible.
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
altruism
altruism
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
edited 1 hour ago
Eliran
4,11121133
4,11121133
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
asked 5 hours ago
user2808054
546212
546212
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I feel you and your psychologist are missing a vital point. The important question would be that of why we feel good when we perform an act of kindness. This is the question biologists have a problem answering. It almost goes without saying that we receive some benefit from performing acts of kindness but this is not an explanation for altruism.
The obvious answer is empathy. We share in the enjoyment of the benefits received by the person we are helping.
Thus Schopenhauer explains altruism as the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth, which would be the unity of consciousness and our shared identity. His idea is that we are not normally consciously aware of this truth but nevertheless it seeps unbenownst to us into our feelings, emotions and behaviour.
This would tie in with the mystic claim that this shared identity may be verified by a study of consciousness. We need not believe this to see that it would at least be one way to explain altruism, which at present remains a problem in biology. Thus for the mystics helping someone else is helping oneself and is in this sense selfish behaviour.
Thus calling altruism selfish behaviour does not explain it. We would have to explain why we feel pleasure when being helpful to others.
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
David Sloan Wilson in the introduction to Does altruism exist? raises a similar question about altruism:
Consider, however, that the word "altruism" didn't exist until 1851 when it was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. If people are altruistic, then why doesn't the word (or its equivalent) have a more ancient pedigree?
In the next paragraph he considers "the role altruism plays in religious thought". He describes a conference studying the question of altruism having this result:
According to the conference participants--each an expert scholar on a given religion--this concept is foreign to the imagination of all of the world's major religious traditions.
This suggests that the concept of "altruism" and its opposite, "selfishness", may need to be examined more closely. Neither concept may adequately describe how we relate to each other.
The OP asks:
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
If "altruism" does not actually describe how we behave it could be a contradictory concept perhaps viewing us too much as individuals rather than as members of a group. If it is not how we actually behave, it doesn't matter whether the concept is possible or impossible. What would be most useful is to describe better how we actually do relate to each other.
Reference
Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
"so there can be no kindness without feeling good"
The flaw is that "feeling good" is being seen through a lens of selfishness. Evil and good divide on the cusp of self-centeredness and selflessness: the non-prioritization of one's self. When an individual overcomes self-centeredness they actually become good. It is a change of attitude, inevitably perceived as making sense; not something done for a feeling of virtue.
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
""disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction."
Disinterested here means without specific interests. You can be quite detached, yet then there is the situation that presents itself, which has to be dealt with rationally. Perhaps a question is, how far out of your way would you go to stop a daft sheep walking off a cliff?
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I feel you and your psychologist are missing a vital point. The important question would be that of why we feel good when we perform an act of kindness. This is the question biologists have a problem answering. It almost goes without saying that we receive some benefit from performing acts of kindness but this is not an explanation for altruism.
The obvious answer is empathy. We share in the enjoyment of the benefits received by the person we are helping.
Thus Schopenhauer explains altruism as the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth, which would be the unity of consciousness and our shared identity. His idea is that we are not normally consciously aware of this truth but nevertheless it seeps unbenownst to us into our feelings, emotions and behaviour.
This would tie in with the mystic claim that this shared identity may be verified by a study of consciousness. We need not believe this to see that it would at least be one way to explain altruism, which at present remains a problem in biology. Thus for the mystics helping someone else is helping oneself and is in this sense selfish behaviour.
Thus calling altruism selfish behaviour does not explain it. We would have to explain why we feel pleasure when being helpful to others.
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I feel you and your psychologist are missing a vital point. The important question would be that of why we feel good when we perform an act of kindness. This is the question biologists have a problem answering. It almost goes without saying that we receive some benefit from performing acts of kindness but this is not an explanation for altruism.
The obvious answer is empathy. We share in the enjoyment of the benefits received by the person we are helping.
Thus Schopenhauer explains altruism as the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth, which would be the unity of consciousness and our shared identity. His idea is that we are not normally consciously aware of this truth but nevertheless it seeps unbenownst to us into our feelings, emotions and behaviour.
This would tie in with the mystic claim that this shared identity may be verified by a study of consciousness. We need not believe this to see that it would at least be one way to explain altruism, which at present remains a problem in biology. Thus for the mystics helping someone else is helping oneself and is in this sense selfish behaviour.
Thus calling altruism selfish behaviour does not explain it. We would have to explain why we feel pleasure when being helpful to others.
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I feel you and your psychologist are missing a vital point. The important question would be that of why we feel good when we perform an act of kindness. This is the question biologists have a problem answering. It almost goes without saying that we receive some benefit from performing acts of kindness but this is not an explanation for altruism.
The obvious answer is empathy. We share in the enjoyment of the benefits received by the person we are helping.
Thus Schopenhauer explains altruism as the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth, which would be the unity of consciousness and our shared identity. His idea is that we are not normally consciously aware of this truth but nevertheless it seeps unbenownst to us into our feelings, emotions and behaviour.
This would tie in with the mystic claim that this shared identity may be verified by a study of consciousness. We need not believe this to see that it would at least be one way to explain altruism, which at present remains a problem in biology. Thus for the mystics helping someone else is helping oneself and is in this sense selfish behaviour.
Thus calling altruism selfish behaviour does not explain it. We would have to explain why we feel pleasure when being helpful to others.
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
I feel you and your psychologist are missing a vital point. The important question would be that of why we feel good when we perform an act of kindness. This is the question biologists have a problem answering. It almost goes without saying that we receive some benefit from performing acts of kindness but this is not an explanation for altruism.
The obvious answer is empathy. We share in the enjoyment of the benefits received by the person we are helping.
Thus Schopenhauer explains altruism as the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth, which would be the unity of consciousness and our shared identity. His idea is that we are not normally consciously aware of this truth but nevertheless it seeps unbenownst to us into our feelings, emotions and behaviour.
This would tie in with the mystic claim that this shared identity may be verified by a study of consciousness. We need not believe this to see that it would at least be one way to explain altruism, which at present remains a problem in biology. Thus for the mystics helping someone else is helping oneself and is in this sense selfish behaviour.
Thus calling altruism selfish behaviour does not explain it. We would have to explain why we feel pleasure when being helpful to others.
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
answered 4 hours ago
PeterJ
2,151414
2,151414
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
"This is the question biologists have a problem answering" ...they do?
– H Walters
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
David Sloan Wilson in the introduction to Does altruism exist? raises a similar question about altruism:
Consider, however, that the word "altruism" didn't exist until 1851 when it was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. If people are altruistic, then why doesn't the word (or its equivalent) have a more ancient pedigree?
In the next paragraph he considers "the role altruism plays in religious thought". He describes a conference studying the question of altruism having this result:
According to the conference participants--each an expert scholar on a given religion--this concept is foreign to the imagination of all of the world's major religious traditions.
This suggests that the concept of "altruism" and its opposite, "selfishness", may need to be examined more closely. Neither concept may adequately describe how we relate to each other.
The OP asks:
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
If "altruism" does not actually describe how we behave it could be a contradictory concept perhaps viewing us too much as individuals rather than as members of a group. If it is not how we actually behave, it doesn't matter whether the concept is possible or impossible. What would be most useful is to describe better how we actually do relate to each other.
Reference
Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
David Sloan Wilson in the introduction to Does altruism exist? raises a similar question about altruism:
Consider, however, that the word "altruism" didn't exist until 1851 when it was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. If people are altruistic, then why doesn't the word (or its equivalent) have a more ancient pedigree?
In the next paragraph he considers "the role altruism plays in religious thought". He describes a conference studying the question of altruism having this result:
According to the conference participants--each an expert scholar on a given religion--this concept is foreign to the imagination of all of the world's major religious traditions.
This suggests that the concept of "altruism" and its opposite, "selfishness", may need to be examined more closely. Neither concept may adequately describe how we relate to each other.
The OP asks:
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
If "altruism" does not actually describe how we behave it could be a contradictory concept perhaps viewing us too much as individuals rather than as members of a group. If it is not how we actually behave, it doesn't matter whether the concept is possible or impossible. What would be most useful is to describe better how we actually do relate to each other.
Reference
Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
David Sloan Wilson in the introduction to Does altruism exist? raises a similar question about altruism:
Consider, however, that the word "altruism" didn't exist until 1851 when it was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. If people are altruistic, then why doesn't the word (or its equivalent) have a more ancient pedigree?
In the next paragraph he considers "the role altruism plays in religious thought". He describes a conference studying the question of altruism having this result:
According to the conference participants--each an expert scholar on a given religion--this concept is foreign to the imagination of all of the world's major religious traditions.
This suggests that the concept of "altruism" and its opposite, "selfishness", may need to be examined more closely. Neither concept may adequately describe how we relate to each other.
The OP asks:
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
If "altruism" does not actually describe how we behave it could be a contradictory concept perhaps viewing us too much as individuals rather than as members of a group. If it is not how we actually behave, it doesn't matter whether the concept is possible or impossible. What would be most useful is to describe better how we actually do relate to each other.
Reference
Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
David Sloan Wilson in the introduction to Does altruism exist? raises a similar question about altruism:
Consider, however, that the word "altruism" didn't exist until 1851 when it was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. If people are altruistic, then why doesn't the word (or its equivalent) have a more ancient pedigree?
In the next paragraph he considers "the role altruism plays in religious thought". He describes a conference studying the question of altruism having this result:
According to the conference participants--each an expert scholar on a given religion--this concept is foreign to the imagination of all of the world's major religious traditions.
This suggests that the concept of "altruism" and its opposite, "selfishness", may need to be examined more closely. Neither concept may adequately describe how we relate to each other.
The OP asks:
So my question is: Is there an inherent contradiction in the notion of altruism? And if so, where does that leave the arguments about whether it's possible / impossible ?
If "altruism" does not actually describe how we behave it could be a contradictory concept perhaps viewing us too much as individuals rather than as members of a group. If it is not how we actually behave, it doesn't matter whether the concept is possible or impossible. What would be most useful is to describe better how we actually do relate to each other.
Reference
Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist?: culture, genes, and the welfare of others. Yale University Press.
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
answered 1 hour ago
Frank Hubeny
4,67831039
4,67831039
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
As defined, even Jesus didn't exercise "altruism": Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. (Hebrews 12:2) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2012:2
– elliot svensson
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
"so there can be no kindness without feeling good"
The flaw is that "feeling good" is being seen through a lens of selfishness. Evil and good divide on the cusp of self-centeredness and selflessness: the non-prioritization of one's self. When an individual overcomes self-centeredness they actually become good. It is a change of attitude, inevitably perceived as making sense; not something done for a feeling of virtue.
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
""disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction."
Disinterested here means without specific interests. You can be quite detached, yet then there is the situation that presents itself, which has to be dealt with rationally. Perhaps a question is, how far out of your way would you go to stop a daft sheep walking off a cliff?
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
"so there can be no kindness without feeling good"
The flaw is that "feeling good" is being seen through a lens of selfishness. Evil and good divide on the cusp of self-centeredness and selflessness: the non-prioritization of one's self. When an individual overcomes self-centeredness they actually become good. It is a change of attitude, inevitably perceived as making sense; not something done for a feeling of virtue.
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
""disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction."
Disinterested here means without specific interests. You can be quite detached, yet then there is the situation that presents itself, which has to be dealt with rationally. Perhaps a question is, how far out of your way would you go to stop a daft sheep walking off a cliff?
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
"so there can be no kindness without feeling good"
The flaw is that "feeling good" is being seen through a lens of selfishness. Evil and good divide on the cusp of self-centeredness and selflessness: the non-prioritization of one's self. When an individual overcomes self-centeredness they actually become good. It is a change of attitude, inevitably perceived as making sense; not something done for a feeling of virtue.
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
""disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction."
Disinterested here means without specific interests. You can be quite detached, yet then there is the situation that presents itself, which has to be dealt with rationally. Perhaps a question is, how far out of your way would you go to stop a daft sheep walking off a cliff?
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
"so there can be no kindness without feeling good"
The flaw is that "feeling good" is being seen through a lens of selfishness. Evil and good divide on the cusp of self-centeredness and selflessness: the non-prioritization of one's self. When an individual overcomes self-centeredness they actually become good. It is a change of attitude, inevitably perceived as making sense; not something done for a feeling of virtue.
"disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"
""disinterested concern" surely is a contradiction."
Disinterested here means without specific interests. You can be quite detached, yet then there is the situation that presents itself, which has to be dealt with rationally. Perhaps a question is, how far out of your way would you go to stop a daft sheep walking off a cliff?
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
edited 46 mins ago
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
answered 54 mins ago
Chris Degnen
1,979715
1,979715
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56754%2fis-altruism-a-contradiction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
see John Searle re: desire-independent reasons for action: sallyhaslanger.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/7/18272031/…
– Mr. Kennedy
1 hour ago
"disinterested concern" is not a contradiction. "disinterested" in this context means "free from selfish motive", not "not interested".
– Eliran
1 hour ago
There is no contradiction. From Western scientific studies it is entirely possible. You will find many references to studies and to its existence in a book called "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive" by Bruce Schneier. Extended discussion on why its does exist and references to the many studies done. From an Eastern philosophical perspective, altruism is possible as All is One, all actions you do to help others is really help to your own self. When you hurt others you are hurting yourself. The pain of others is your own pain.
– Swami Vishwananda
1 hour ago